Am 17.10.11 11:58, schrieb Peter Koch:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 01:04:49PM +0200, Tobias Knecht wrote:
>>> I fully agree to the part with not promoting design information within
>> the proposal. How RIPE NCC is keeping their things together is imho
>> nothing that should be under discussion. As far as I know we do not
>> discuss which hardware they use, which programming language they use and
>> we should not discuss which database and which database model they use.
>> i beg to differ: nobody is talking about HW or programming language, but the
> type of objects and their relations has always been subject to community
> discussion and i believe this fruitful interaction is part of the reason
> why the RIPE DB is successful.
I fully agree that type of objects and their relations are part of the
discussion. But I do not agree that the way RIPE NCC splits up their
database design and business logic part should be part of a community
discussion. These are imho 2 completely different things.
>> I agree with Denis that we can talk through this in this TF, but not in
>> the community. Community had the chance to be part of the TF and join
>> the discussion. That's why we are here, because we took the chance.
>> This is not how this community works. Our output is subject to review
> and we would be ill advised not to take operational considerations
> into account.
>> "design" is not about implementation details, it is about concepts.
> And should we suggest to exploit the hierarchy in registered objects
> it is part of our job to define what operators can expect.
Yes I fully agree that our output is object to review. No doubt about
that. Community should review the idea of the abuse-c, the idea of the
cleanup with the renaming of mnt-irt and some other things. And exactly
these things should be part of the policy proposal. I do not see the
need for community to review implementation techniques and database
design within the policy proposal for abuse contact information.
We're supposed to come up with a policy proposal about the abuse contact
information. And that is what we should do. We want to have a abuse-c
with these and those attributes. We want to have a cleanup to get rid of
old things. We want to rename the mnt-irt into irt-c because it is a
contact as well and renaming makes it more consistent.
That's what this proposal and this taskforce is all about.
The implementation has nothing to do with the proposal itself. Making a
copy of tech-c and just putting it into the database would work the same
way. So the need for abuse contact information and the implementation of
a new way of storing things in the database are two different things.
Thanks,
Tobias
--
abusix
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/acm-tf/attachments/20111017/3f21a09d/attachment.bin